Topic: Bill Gator and OG not telling the whole truth. (Read 1085 times)

Thanks buddy - so the question still remains why does OG nasty feel the need to consistently only part quote members on this forum for his own crusade, I do not see this as trustworthy behavior and this could be one of the many reasons so many other DT-1 Members are excluding him.

My reading comprehension is fine, your statement is irrelevant. This all began with an inexcusable action by Vod, the rest is just pathetic attempts at diversion from the cause of the conflict.

My statement that you deemed "irrelevant" had nothing to do with any of those 3 people. Go back and read through the quoted posts for context.

Hahah I missed this. Your usual debate strategy of choice. Say a bunch of unsubstantiated shit, never support it, then proclaim you are above this kind of petty bickering just before declaring yourself the victor and running away. Your pattern is getting a bit predictable Nutilduhh... might want to change it up a bit.

"Has nothing to do with Vod. I don't think you understand what the issue at hand is."

This has everything to do with Vod and nothing to do with Bill Gator or OG. Any one with 2 braincells to rub together can see this is just a really pathetic attempt at diversion from the inexcusable actions of Vod's initial behavior. If you are at an outdoor cafe and some one runs their car into the seating area and the guy next to you jumps up out of the way and spills your drink on you, is he at fault or the one driving the car?

You seem to be focused on the spilled drink. I wonder why.

I can confirm that I also tested it and removed tag, there is enough characters to quote this:



I don't want to be a dick and start thread in meta about this, but OG should contact administration and tell them about this bug which affects feedback he sends.

QS as entertaining as you have been recently you are breaking my local rules and your post is entirely off topic from my OP.

Please can you adhere to these rules fella, I feel this thread is serious enough where OgNasty is selectively quoting members and the Admin on this forum to further his own retarded pursuit of Vod, the pair of them have and are acting as prized cunts (I say that as I like one and dislike the other) i'm being unbiased here and would appreciate the same from others who are posting in this thread.

I see no reason why any rating should only be “temporary”, especially a few weeks temporary. Two weeks of having a negative rating is basically a non-punishment and realistically is the result of you being excluded from DT.

Has nothing to do with Vod. I don't think you understand what the issue at hand is.


The one you're still on, apparently.


You mean the iCEBREAKER tag? He was removed from DT, as were you. The community has voted against both of your judgments. That's not what I was talking about, however.


Right, a brilliant revision of history, unsurprisingly in your favor. Compelling. Doesn't explain why you felt the need to continue to sling shit in my Reputation thread though. Frankly I don't care. Feel free to write another one of your famous neverending rebuttals to this comment so you can have the last word. I'm out.

Irrelevant. The point is there is no other plausible explanation for Vod's behavior other than malicious intent. There is literally no plausible excuse for why what he did was ok regardless of it being posted already elsewhere. I haven't negative rated you because unlike you I don't feel the need to run around with my plastic badge and police the forum.

What crusade to get you tagged? You were already tagged and I argued that others were just in doing so by standards you yourself advocate for. You hold others to those standards but you expect to be exempt yourself. How convenient. You embarrassed ME in Politics and Society? BWAHAHAHA, K. I guess that's why you needed to put me on ignore, because I was so embarrassed by your intellectual prowess! You had virtually no activity in P&S until you decided to follow me there to extend your circle jerk vendettas & try your luck, got spanked, and ran away crying, yes, talk about petty.

What you should have learned was that "unearthing" publicly-available information written three years ago is not necessarily grounds for a red trust. If you feel so strongly that it is, why haven't you left one for me yet? You're trying to claim uneven application of a "standard" that never existed.

Your whole crusade against me and movement to get me tagged began because you felt I embarrassed you in Politics & Society... I told you I was putting you on ignore and you immediately visited my trust history to look for dirt to dig on me. Fifteen minutes later you were smearing it around in my Reputation thread... Talk about petty 


For the record, this was also my line of thinking, and I am open to changing my mind about it.

why are you blatantly ignoring my rules? you have already had 1 set of posts removed, please kindly fuck off back to your poo street and leave the grown ups alone - you have no business here

Might help if you try reading what you're replying to. I'm all for a case-by-case approach. But when someone paints themselves into a corner by saying they'll do X and then don't do X - I think "hypocrite" is appropriate. Perhaps even "liar".

BTW I've only red-trusted a few account trades for blatant shit like selling a green-rated account so you must be confusing me with someone else.

Standards are for thee and not for me! HOW DARE YOU HAVE A STANCE THAT IS NOT UNIVERSALLY APPLIED! Only I and the loser DT mob are allowed to do that and then call out others as if we serve as a beacon of impartial justice!

It never ceases to amaze me how many times you will use this argument of a users standards against them, when you yourself don't even meet these standards as if you are allowed to pick and choose who you rate but when some one else does it, they are a hypocrite. Lol. This reminds me a lot of all of your negative ratings sent for account trading, yet when your buddy Nutilduhh was shown to have solicited their account for sale suddenly everyone needs to hold on a minute.

I have excluded you for red-trusting other users for sending merits, and I have 15 thousand reasons for that. That's all there is to it. This is permanent unless you show that this was just a momentary lapse of judgement but seeing you're still trying to spin this - not looking likely. It's a shame since I used to think you're a level-headed dude but it appears you're letting your personal likes/dislikes dictate your use of the trust system.

I called you a hypocrite because you declared (unprompted) that you'll take the same anti-doxing stance against anyone, which I assume would mean red-trusting the doxer and anyone sending merits to the doxer... then you weaseled out of it when presented with a couple of opportunities to do so. Same goes for bill gator. Personally I don't believe in the "all or nothing approach" with trust ratings, i.e. if you red-trust someone for eating lemons I don't think you're obligated to red-trust every lemon-eating idiot. However when you voluntarily declare such a position and then don't follow through - yes, you're a hypocrite. That's neither here or there, I'm not gonna red-trust you for that... just an opinion.


What's wrong with the way you approached OgNasty's dox?

[Drags dead horse into the room and starts beating it] Hey stop beating that dead horse! Beat this dead horse!

maybe its difficult because I quoted too much, but to take a leaf out of OG's book ill just quote the relevant part to my story.


as for your tag I countered it already fella, although at this rate I might even change my mind to that - stop beating a dead horse

Forgiveness does not mean free of consequence.
I'm not advocating to ban Vod, or even remove Vod from DT - I thought a single temporary DT1 feedback indicating that he had a lapse of judgement that was significantly malicious was appropriate.
The only reason I even have anything to say about the situation anymore, is because I'm sitting here with the biggest bullshit negative feedback from somebody you are all defending as a hero.

As you don't know the rules.

Breaking local rules, you are breaking forum rules...

see ya princess

I felt like theymos was giving his feedback on the steps I initially took that started this whole thing off.. not giving a green light to use his statement as the basis of future negatives. It is unacceptable what Vod did so a properly worded negative rating is appropriate, but make it your own and make it sincere. Anyone can work in private and do their own investigation into anybody they want.. it's just that taking it public was the wrong way to go about it.

I've been called out for using negative trust for merit posting but theymos does say that there is an argument to be had there.. how I took this was that permanent red trust was not the answer, which is why I explained myself in neutral ratings and then after a day of each of the four being online I removed those aswell. Theymos said that red trust is "the wrong level" which is right, but there isn't really a forum tool that is the correct level needed to effectively get the point across that it was also not very acceptable behavior. Especially for fellow DT1 members.

On the forgiving part, I also agree here and Vod can confirm that when we talked and got rid of the dox post that I told him my negative trust would remain for 1-2 weeks and then I would bump it down to a neutral, seeings how he realized his mistake and in the end made things right by removing the post completely. When someone does something wrong they shouldn't be immediately forgiven.. there should be a minor consequence aka a week or two of a lower trust score. All this immediate countering of negatives doesn't help anybody realize that they did something wrong.

Now since we are all for forgiving Vod because he edited the dox to remove OgNasty's personal info, I would hope that this goes both ways and my use of a very temporary red tag for the merit posters should also be forgiven. ( Surprisingly one of the main reasons I did what I did was to attempt to protect the four members from having their name at the top of the dox post in case something did happen and law enforcement was involved.. I was not being malicious, I was actually trying to protect ). The word hypocrite has been thrown around by two members that have excluded me over this.. they need to take a look in the mirror.

I've taken a look at the hhampuz dox thread and need to figure out the best way to approach that whack job. IMO that one is up to theymos or a moderator to get rid of as anyone that brings up anything relevant is threatened with a dox of their own. Unless you've got locktight opsec it's a toughie and that is most likely why a lot of DT1 may not have stepped in there. A lot of us being Collectibles members is a bit scary as we probably have the worst opsec of the forum due to trading bitcoin for physical coins pretty much daily.

Please no circle talk and pointless replies, this should be a turning point towards making the forum a better place for everyone, there are a lot more members here watching from afar than you think.

Edit to add: My inclusions are based on the fact that not everyone I have included in my trust list are always going to agree.. what we need are some differing views sometimes, just because someone has an unpopular opinion or creates a few waves here or there doesn't mean they should be instantly excluded. The world would be boring as fuck if we all just agreed all the time.